zeldafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Mr. Write
This is directed at Jedimasterlink. I don't understand why my edit was undid. Mine made more sense. Mr. White should not be considered a "recurring" character if he only appears twice in the series. Recurring suggests more than twice, which is not true in this situation. -- 15:28, December 30, 2011 (UTC) :That may or may not be true, but you are out of line making these kinds of changes without a discussion beforehand. --Auron'Kaizer ' 15:41, December 30, 2011 (UTC) The way I see it is something appears once then it occurs and if it appears again then it reoccurs. The number of times that it reoccurs doesn't matter if it appears twice then it still reoccurs at least once. Oni Link 15:47, December 30, 2011 (UTC) I assumed since it was such a minor edit for the sake of clarity I wouldn't need to discuss it. What kind of edits qualify for discussion? All kinds? --Deku mask (talk) 15:52, December 30, 2011 (UTC) :Systematically changing the way we define "reoccurring" on the wiki requires a discussion. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 16:22, December 30, 2011 (UTC) Okay, first of all, "reocurring" isn't a word. It's "recurring." Second, I didn't systematically change the definition. Saying "appears twice" is much more clear than "recurring." It's more specific and concise. I thought that was what wikis were for. But if wikis are for getting butthurt about definitions, then deleting reasonable edits, I guess I was wrong. --Deku mask (talk) 16:54, December 30, 2011 (UTC) :I know I was merely breaking down the nature of the word recurring. And it was not unreasonable to delete such an edit. When it comes to such things there is a format that all similar pages follow. There is a high likelihood that you could be right about the wording, however if you are that means every page of this situation must be changed for the sake of consistency. That is something that is important at a wiki. Oni Link 19:14, December 30, 2011 (UTC) ::All right, that's fine. I'll try to keep that in mind next time... --Deku mask (talk) 20:04, December 30, 2011 (UTC)-- 20:03, December 30, 2011 (UTC) Actually, "reoccur", and, by extension, "reoccurring", are words, which are simply synonymous with "recur" and "recurring", respectively. Also, although one possible dictionary definition of the adjective "recurring" is 'Happening frequently, with repetition,' (taken from an actual dictionary), which would certainly suggest an occurrence of more than twice, the word is just the present participle (a present tense verb that can also act as an adjective) of "recur", which, in the same dictionary is defined as '(intransitive) To happen again.' and gives an example ('The theme of the prodigal son recurs later in the third act') which would appear to refer to a thing which appears only twice, which would indicate that Oni Dark Link is right about the wording.-- 21:57, December 30, 2011 (UTC) :Thanks for the unnecessary vocab lesson. We've already settled this; there's no need to just further argue about the issue. "issue." Besides, words and definitions are not finite. As people and societies change, so do words and their meaning. For example, the world "federal" does not actually mean what politicians use it for; however, we understand what they are talking about still. I don't really understand what you were trying to accomplish here..but no, the word is "recur" and frankly I don't care about what is written in a book or what was the definition years ago; I care about the current word and its definition that is used today. --Deku mask (talk) 22:32, December 30, 2011 (UTC) ::Dictionary dated 2011.-- 15:04, December 31, 2011 (UTC)